Talk:Van Morrison/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Editing the 1st line of the Van Morrison page.

Van Morrison has been writing, recording and performing music for 45 years, making a substantial contribution to popular music culture. I think it unbalanced and mildly deconstructive that the opening line his Wiki entry includes derogative and subjective comment on his personality. I suggest that the opening sentence ends with the word songwriter and omits with a reputation for being stubborn[3][4] and idiosyncratic.[5][6]. Tnasch (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think that's rally suitable for a lead sentence. Connormah^talk 03:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you agree. Does anyone have any objections to removing this from the lead sentence? Tnasch (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

None whatsoever. Go for it. Bjmullan (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've stayed non-committal on this to allow others to weigh in, but think that we have to remove the critically-acclaimed also from the sentence as this has been seen as an issue in the past and on those occasions I defended leaving it in to balance the other descriptors. (which I did not write in, BTW) As an example, see the Bob Dylan opening sentence. Agadant (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Change made. Agadant (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

First Wife's name.

Why is Morrison's first wife referred to as Janet (Planet) Rigsbee? Is this a actual nickname or some strange reference to the Rocky Horror Picture Show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.157.166.50 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Her name was Janet Rigsbee when he met and married her. He (according to what she has said) nicknamed her 'Janet Planet'. This was the name she used professionally, etc. while they were married. Therefore (Planet) is given in parenthesis for clarity. She now goes by the name of Janet Morrison Minto. Agadant (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion-- Why not refer to her as Janet "Janet Planet" Rigsbee ??? I always knew her from liner notes, etc AS "Janet Planet"-- and it wouldn't be exactly correct to write her as Janet "Planet" Rigsbee, as her nn was not, simply, "Planet." LexiEliot (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

hmm... looking at her mention in many articles online about Van Morrison and her influence on his life or music, she is often referred to as Janet (Planet) Rigsbee or Janet "Planet" Rigsbee. When I first started editing this article in 2006, she was mistakenly identified as the jazz singer with the real name of Janet Planet, so that has to be considered too. Maybe some others have ideas too on the most correct way to identify her here. Agadant (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Payin' Dues

Didn't Van Morrison do an album called Payin' Dues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.187.239 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That was just another of the multiple albums compiled from the same Bang material that Morrison recorded in 1967-1968. Agadant (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede

Ok, I know I'm probably going to be called for a Philistine for this, but you need more than single citations for terms like "transcendental" and you DEFINITELY need multiple, reliable sources for something to be widely considered the "greatest" ANYTHING, not just a single source for each from the same website. Soxwon (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you're not pleased but this article passed GA exactly like this after the lead was written up by an admin. All material in the lead has further sourcing in the body of the article. I'm surprised you wouldn't know that this type of removal of material with citations would take consensus. Agadant (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed it per WP:BRD which even good article are subject to. Please don't act as if good articles can't be improved or that admins are above having their work edited as that is not how wikipedia works. I will assert again, that you need multiple reliable sources to claim it is widely considered the best anything, ESPECIALLY in the lead. Soxwon (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Acclaimed Music source was used for each of the albums mentioned because they have a long list of "Best of" rankings that these albums received and further sources are in the body. The lead is not supposed to have citations for material that is plentifully sourced in the body but we made an exception because Morrison's article seems to attract editors who don't believe he deserves any accolades and in fact know little about him and don't read the entire article. Agadant (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And as far as that goes Astral Weeks was voted #19 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and Moondance was ranked #65. That alone would be enough to qualify them as some of the best albums, even without further sources, but they are there and if you want more, I'll furnish you plenty of them. Agadant (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, works for me. Soxwon (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's laughable. the most 'transcendental', oh how 'inspired'... this is a encyclopedia, not a fanbook. I'm not arguing against Morrison's high regard or popularity, but that it reads like a piece of terrible semi-literate writing. Please find a better way of saying "this guy is highly regarded". Orecalimo (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Transcendental and inspired are the qualities that make Morrison's music unique and these words are used to define what makes him different as a performer and are not at all used with the same meaning as "highly regarded". As far as terrible, semiliterate writing goes, I think this editor is rather "highly-regarded" and qualified enough to write a lead for this article. (User:SilkTork) - More so than you or I, and his edits are backed up by reliable sources as was called for by Soxwon - who then said "fine, works for me". Agadant (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to dare making a comment on this issue as a Wikipedia user who only reluctantly also edits. Some of my other qualifications are that I am not a particular fan of Van Morrison, nor do I believe that his talents and impact should be minimized in any way. I am intentionally not indenting my remarks because they are not in response to any particular comment that has come before but to the issue in general.

Why I'm here: Somehow I got fragments of "Moondance" dancing around in my head this morning, and after I finally figured out what it was I came here to read about Mr Morrison, about whom I don't know much. I believe that makes me a typical Wikipedia user: I came here to get information on something I don't know much about. Period. No agenda. No axe to grind. Just wanting to learn about a subject, in this case Van Morrison.

I am going to be as clear and honest as I can be now, not intending to offend anybody but offering my relatively disinterested take on that first paragraph in hopes that my input will be useful, particularly to those who defend the paragraph as it stands now.

I think the paragraph is counterproductive. Regardless of how many sources it gives and what the quality of those sources is, the effect on this disinterested reader is somewhat offputting.

I already know that Van Morrison has been a very important figure in the music world for most of my life (I'm two years younger than he is). But to be confronted by words like "transcendental" and "inspired" and "greatest ever made" before I have learned anything else about him except his age turns me off. It's a natural, involuntary, gut reaction. I can't help it. It's fundamentally a physical reaction, somewhat like the reaction I'd have if I picked up the phone and someone started yelling at me.

What I automatically think when I read that paragraph is, "WHOA! Somebody is pushing this guy too hard." I came here wanting – expecting – to like him, because I like "Moondance" and "Brown Eyed Girl" and many of his other songs a lot, but I couldn't get past that first paragraph.

It's just too heavy-handed, too insistent, too ruthlessly determined that I must understand what a transcendent, inspired genius he is before I even know why I should think that. Before I read that paragraph I was willing to become a Morrison fan; after reading it I closed my browser without reading any farther. I can't imagine that that is how the editors who champion that paragraph expect it to affect readers, but that is how it does affect me, and I don't believe that I am alone in that reaction.

Peppering the paragraph with reference numbers is also counterproductive. Telling me that three or more experts agree that Morrison is a genius makes me feel even more like I'm being ganged up on and forced to admire him, still without being told why. It's like I open this page and find a platoon of armed and reinforced troops demanding that I kneel before entering.

That's not good, folks. I think the first paragraph needs to drop its picket signs and welcome the reader to learn about Mr Morrison, not demand that he admire Morrison first.

I'm aware that I'm overreacting. This is just an online encyclopedia article, and I'm reacting as if it's bodily assault. I'm always like this. I have very strong reactions to things that "normal" people either don't react to at all or shrug off quickly. I used to think of it as a handicap, but I have learned that often my reactions are just a distilled, concentrated form of reactions many other people experience without even being aware of them. I may be the only WP reader who thinks of the Gestapo when he reads the first paragraph about Van Morrison, but I'd be willing to bet a month's pay I'm not the only reader who is turned away by it without knowing exactly why.

As I said, I'm a reader first, and editing is somewhere far down the list of my priorities and interests. I have no illusions that what I've written here will make any difference at all to the resolution of this controversy. I just felt I should share my reaction for whatever it may be worth.

--Jim10701 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

For everyone, I'll say "Thanks" for your input and for letting WP and its editors and readers know so much about you and your preferences. I'll try to briefly address your essay, although I didn't write the lede to the article as I stated above. The admin who did, most probably would not find time to answer you, as he stays really involved and busy doing the "hard work" of editing and reviewing WP:GA and WP:FA articles. The lede follows guidelines for WP:Lead - "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable... the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." As Morrison is not noted for number of albums sold or popularity with the general public (who mostly know him for "Brown Eyed Girl" and "Moondance" both written and recorded in his early 20s) the Wiki article defines him as his biographers do and those most familiar with his most innovative and influential music. He is most notable because of his ability to perform at his very best on an inspired and transcendental level and because of his critical acclaim and awards. For your further information, here are some other well known artists who have similar leads pointing out the artists "claim to fame": Bob Dylan, The Beatles, John Lennon, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Neil Young and Beck.

There's really no controversy here as you put forth. Any topic that appears on the current page of an article will attract comments, according to the POV of the reader.

As far as putting the sources in the lead for Morrison's notability and accomplishments, they are included to prevent deletion of material which some would feel free to remove the material as you stated here on your talk page concerning another article's lead. here. Agadant (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You and I have very different values. I care almost exclusively about the users of Wikipedia, about the millions of people who never edit a WP article but who come here to get information. I see WP as a service to them, and every edit I make I make from their point of view, trying to make WP as useful to them as possible by presenting unbiased information to them in as simple and yet as complete a form as possible. Making Wikipedia accessible and useful to them is really all I care about as an editor.

I care very little about the internal workings of Wikipedia: about interactions within the community of Wikipedia editors; about the arcane and complex hierarchy of WP administrators and other bureaucrats; about the spurious concept of editing by consensus; and about any internal standards and practices and rules except those which work directly toward the goals I described in the previous paragraph, which are clarity, accuracy, objectivity and accessibility for the users of Wikipedia who never edit Wikipedia.

Therefore, your explanation of why the lead paragraph of this article must remain as it is doesn't make any sense to me. But you seem to be convinced you are right, and those who are convinced they are right are the ones who in the end always get what they want at Wikipedia. That's what consensus really means here.

--Jim10701 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you say you care so much about the millions of people who come here to get information, perhaps you might consider that there would be little information here, if not for the hours of unremunerated time that Silktork and I have contributed to provide information to the readers. The thanks and good ratings on the article are what make it all worthwhile. If all of the reliably sourced information is not everyone's preferred content that is to be expected: It's a big world out there, with people of many different opinions. Always remember it's much more difficult and time-consuming to create the content that you selectively would choose to delete or "remove" as you call it and that seems to be your predominent method of editing. [1] Please reply to my talk page if you have any further comments about my values and about how they are not up to your standards. Agadant (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am going to join in here at this point. The use of "trancendental" is wrong, misleading and is not supported by the three refrences supplied. "His live performances at their best are regarded as transcendental[1][2][3]" is not what is stated in the references, and as such a change is required.

Reference [1] states "Van Morrison's transcendent 'Astral' at Greek" this is surely a reference to the album itself, not "his live performances" in general.

Reference [2] states "This was the man from whom we were expecting an evening of weightless, transcendent poetry" That is a reviewers expectation for the evening to come. Again, it's not a reference to "his live performances" in general.

Reference [3] states "...a lengthy string of alternately transcendental and frustratingly banal albums", and "Moondance is closest to Astral Weeks’ transcendent, romantic mysticism". This has nothing to do with the suggestion that 'his live perforamnces are transcendental'.

Unless references can be found to support the statement it should be removed / edited. Stephenjh (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on ref. no. [1]: The title refers to his live performance that evening at of the Astral Weeks songs at the Greek Theatre. It is a review of that performance, so why wouldn't it? Why would the reviewer in ref. no. [2] be expecting an evening of weightless, "transcendent" poetry if this was not Morrison's performance reputation? If you know Morrison's recording techniques, you would know that he records live without overdubs on vocals for sure, so the reference [3] would be taken by those familiar with his work to be referring to his performing. Reference no. [4] for inspired states: "Morrison’s voice was just like we remembered - transcendental and inspired" so it actually can be used for both of the descriptors.

But I will find more - I have seen many - but many are in books and not viewable on internet. Agadant (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one: Los Angeles Times: "You could hear Van Morrison drawing on all three traditions when he performed his 1968 album, "Astral Weeks," live for the first time last November at the Hollywood Bowl, transcendent concerts preserved faithfully in Astral Weeks Live,..." Agadant (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Another one: Rolling Stone: "Transcendence is always a work in progress; the eight songs on Astral Weeks are still up to the task."

And another: John McCready, NME, 1987: "On any other shoulders, Morrison’s transcendent reputation would weigh heavily"

Another: Los Angeles Times live review: "But transcendence is what Morrison has been after with his music from the beginning, and it's what he achieved frequently on Friday, when he played his watershed 1968 album "Astral Weeks" live in its entirety for the first time." Agadant (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Another:New York Times: "Van Morrison, ever unsmiling, makes every concert a search with elusive goals. He grumbles, invokes heroes, exorcises pain and reaches for transcendence."

Explanation of how his performances are transcendental:

Muddy Water Magazine: "He [Van Morrison closes his eyes and at some point he begins to seem to forget the audience is there, and for a brief moment, near the end, he repeats the line “send them all in, send them all in, send them all in…” and for that instant, the song lifts off the ground and becomes a pure musical moment – it transcends everything that’s come before it. Compared to other such trademark moments by Morrison, it’s relatively minor, but it’s an example of what Greil Marcus cherishes about Morrison – when there is the loss of the self and something purely creational, godlike in a way, happens. It's a condition that accounts for Morrison’s mercurial moods and bad temper, as if the outside world has no right to infringe on his visions, the visions he’s creating right there on stage for the very outside world he keeps away." Agadant (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Another:Huffington Post: "Morrison remains the master of his transcendental craft to this day, using it most effectively during his live performances." Agadant (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess this subject seems to be closed, but I thought I would add another data point. I had almost the exact same experience as Jim10701. I heard some people in the hallway at work talking about Van Morrison (who I don't know much about), so I went to this page to learn more about him. This introduction paragraph is so over the top I thought it was a joke. I even remarked to myself, "wow, this seems like a pretty mainstream wikipedia article to have graffiti on it!". I assumed that this intro paragraphs was written by someone who was making fun of the artist and they were saying this stuff ironically. Only after going to the talk page did I realize that you people are serious. It's just... so ridiculous.

Judging from the previous discussions about this, I obviously am going to be dismissed here, but let me just say this. Having records on "best albums of all time" lists put together by music industry critics/magazines is not the same thing as being "widely viewed as among the greatest ever made". "Widely viewed" among music critics is not the same as "widely viewed" in general and furthermore, "appearing on several all-time lists" is not even the same as being widely viewed by music critics. It just means whoever wrote those lists thinks so. The way it reads now it sounds like you are saying that all people in the western civilized world are in general agreement that these albums are among the greatest every made. Based on their sales, this is obviously not true. I mean seriously, besides "Brown Eyed Girl", most people can't name a single song by Van Morrison (if they can even name Brown Eyed Girl).

I'm not trying to hate on Van Morrison. I'm sure the guy is amazing. I'm trying to help here. This article reads like a fanboy's wet dream and after reading the intro paragraph I rolled my eyes and stopped reading concluding that the article was about as biased as I'd ever seen. It honestly reads as if someone is making fun of him ironically. Hope this helps! Brendan98 (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You must not have read many musicians articles then. One thing I've observed on Wikipedia is those that don't, and have not spent any of their time writing on articles are the first to jump on the band wagon criticizing, and then, one after another, the naysayers come out of the woodwork as soon as the negativity gets started on the talkpage and it all coincidentally coincides with what the last negative guy said. I really think you should consider whether you have said anything productive here or whether you are being completely destructive and 'piling on'. I am working on the article - no, not because I think there was anything wrong with the wording and no, not because I think it should be changed. I hope you will read more articles, especially GA and FA articles, to become more familiar with how the lede summarizes the body of the article, and how the notability of the subject should be established in the first few sentences. This is an article about him as an artist and what he has accomplished. - The noted albums have been listed often in 'best of' lists. Nothing has been said about his popularity with the pop general audience and the article shouldn't have to be written for the average "Brown Eyed Girl" fan. Thanks, but I don't find your remarks helpful but ridiculing and POV. Agadant (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Look man, I'm sorry if my first comment was a little flippant, but I'm not some "naysayer" who just stumbled upon an argument and decided to "pile on" as you suggest. And while I don't write a lot on here, I am a voracious reader/user of WP and have been for a decade. You inferring from my criticism that I don't read much and that I basically don't know what I'm talking about just shows how defensive you are and how personally you are taking this. I don't go around trolling talk pages. I couldn't care less about Van Morrison. I know almost nothing about him, but I do know bad writing and bias when I see it.

You can see from my contribution list that I am not big a contributor to WP. What does that tell you about how badly this intro is written? I didn't even know my login/password 2 hours ago! I had to do the "I forgot my password" thing just to I could log in and say something on this talk page. That's how striking the bias is in the article. You are such a huge fan and so protective of Van Morrison and this article it's like you are blind to what everyone is telling you. Take a minute to reflect on what people are saying on this page and try to step outside yourself as fan and author.

Lastly, this article absolutely does make claims about the "general audience" as you put it. The phrase "some of his recordings...are widely viewed as among the greatest ever made" does have not any disclaimers about who views them this way. "Widely viewed" implies a "wide" audience. It implies the general population unless you qualify it otherwise.

Like I said, I'm trying to help you improve this article, I'm not trying to ridicule you or the musician. I don't care who wrote it originally or how important of an admin he was or that it was "reviewed" and accepted as a "good article". The intro is not good. It's a huge turn-off at the very top and it sours the entire rest of the article. You (presumably) have done so much work on this article, you are really doing yourself a disservice with this introduction. You are only turning readers away when you clearly want them to learn about and appreciate this guy and his music. Good luck with your re-write. Brendan98 (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't take it personally, I've been editing too long for that... it's a thankless job as judged and critiqued by other editors quite often and one where you can spend a good amount of free time trying to write informative and interesting material and then have to dodge all the attacks and try to keep the article pieced together as best you can, or give up and let it be deleted away in a short time. BTW, I don't do the writing to get others to appreciate this guy but to give the readers information on him and some only want to read what they have already made up their mind is what they want to see and think they know. (if you and the others can rant on here, so can I.) Agadant (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Gatekeeper and the current status of Wikipedia

There are 106 other editors who watch this article. But for what purpose? Not to help out to preserve the article's integrity, it seems. How often has some other editor appeared on the talk page that actually wanted to improve the article or maintain it as a GA article? Most want to remove sourced material that doesn't agree with their own POV or complain in some way about the subject of the article. I have been described in a blog as the "Gatekeeper" of this article, initially to my great embarrassment. But why doesn't any one of the 106 other editors who have this article on their watchlist ever participate in maintaining it except to revert very obvious vandalism? Does any other editor ever appear on the talk page to refute anonymous IPs or SPA's who want to delete sourced material for their own agenda? I've been working on here for over 5 years and to my memory it hasn't happened except for one or two editors. I always wait a length of time before reverting or changing edits that are in conflict with WP:BLP or WP:MOS hoping that one of the other editors will revert or change the material to comply, but in the end I always have to step up. There were edits made last night that any editor on the watchlist should have considered as in violation of WP:BLP, but not one reverted or changed the edits. I had to do it after it stayed put in the article for six hours. But an editor did take out external links in less than two hours after I made constructive edits to the article today. Although in the current environment, we are made to feel like we are somehow an enemy to the encyclopedia, without the "gatekeepers", the Wikipedia Project would soon cease to exist, or only as a tabloid or source for religious topics. Agadant (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This response is a continuation of the "Lede" discussion above, but I think it is more productive to write it here, especially because I sense you will be the one I will be discussing with and because your rant about the neglect of the "gatekeepers" does not belong in this talk page to begin with.

I came here to agree with the multiple requests for the lede to be rewritten and less biased towards explicitly presented, but implicitly substantiated praise. I start by telling you that using the fact that this article "passed GA" to justify its content is, unfortunately for you, not possible. That is akin to using an Oscar to make the case of how good a movie is, when it should be the other way around - movies get Oscars for being good, they are not good because they got an Oscar.

It is comic that you would brag about the "unremunerated hours" you spent working on the article and tell us you do it for the "thanks and good ratings". It is also laughable that you would disdain of the "anonymous IPs" who supposedly come here "to delete sourced material for their own agenda". I have been editing anonymously for many years now, and I do it to contribute, not for attribution. I do not consider the edits of newcomers (possibly editing my own edits) as any less deserving than mine. The fact that Wikipedia allows anonymous contributions is itself the very reason they should not be considered inferior or disdained.

Now to my defense of the change, otherwise this response would not belong in the talk page either. I will not let you dismiss my suggestions as a matter of opinion, like you tried to do with Jim above. I visit Wikipedia very often to learn about people I hear about for the first time as well as people I know much about, and this lede is clearly not up to the standards of other articles in its category.

I defend that you should not use weasel expressions like "are regarded as" or "are widely viewed as", especially in the article's lede. Those expressions are very detrimental to the article's quality. When introducing critical opinions on an encyclopedia, be they positive or negative, pick an authoritative (or at least reputable) source and quote it literally and explicitly. The article on "Sgt. Pepper's", for instance, does not say the album is "regarded as the most impotant rock & roll album ever made", it says Rolling Stone called it that; Rolling Stone being a widely circulated and accepted source for most popular music articles on Wikipedia and elsewhere, the claim is sufficiently backed and justified. To clarify, I have no problem with leaving those claims about Morrison and his albums exactly where they are, as long as the source is good and quoted literally and explicitly. I am sorry, but a bunch of footnotes is simply not enough.

This whole discussion, it seems to me, is the classical example of the longtime Wikipedia editor who contributed to a large portion of an article and then refuses to allow other people to change it. I hope you can get over that. I have written large portions of other articles myself, and I was delighted when people noticed it and decided to start editing the article too. I have this problem that I keep revising the stuff I write over and over again until the very last minute before I push "Send", so I am always glad to receive help, especially with wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.18.188.249 (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem to be wanting to have a conflict with me, I will address this and state once again: The lede was mostly written by an experienced, GA reviewer and admin, SilkTork, who has some familiarity also with Van Morrison's work and I have a lot of respect for SilkTork's knowledge and contributions. The lede does a good job of describing Morrison's notability and summarizing the body of the article, in my opinion. Agadant (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your reverence for SilkTork's knowledge, experience and status is completely irrelevant. What does that have to do with the article's quality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.251.54 (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"Here Comes Van Morrison"

User:DigbyDalton has recently added the sentence "Seventeen of these revenge recordings were released in the "Here Comes Van Morrison" album on the Pazzazz label in 2004" This was referenced to the album details. I have requested third party references, for this poor quality unofficial album, I don't think the detail belongs in the article at all but if it's staying it needs better referencing than an album sleeve! Theroadislong (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I have found on these "revenge" songs, they have been released on several albums since 1994, but never officially on a US label. - Bang was a US label. It looks like any releases of them are from bootlegs, released in Europe. The entry that DigbyDalton put in the article does not belong there and highlights only the latest and a partial release of these songs and it seems like that is from a European bootleg label. Definitely not material to be put into a WP:GA article: here, here, here Agadant (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Quotation from this source [2]

• "Never released by Bang, long available only on bootleg tapes..." this was written in 2005 after the release of the HCVM Pazzazz CD. Agadant (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Associated acts

To the IP constantly adding associated acts - being a backing vocalist on a few tracks does not make you an associated act. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and look what that IP has done to The Chieftains article! Put in anyone they ever sang with… it looks like: Before the IP edited - and After Agadant (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

More IP edits

Mr. IP is at it again. 1958 is the start of Morrison's career because of, "In 1958, the band played at some of the local cinemas, and Morrison took the lead, contributing most of the singing and arranging." As for adding Epic Records as one of his labels, as far as I can tell, Van Morrison never recorded for them. He recorded for Bang Records who merged with Epic decades later under the CBS Records umbrella. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That's right. Van Morrison never recorded for epic. YosemiteDan (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Michelle Rocca

Do we want to add the fact she appeared on the cover of the Morrison tribute album No Prima Donna? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be useful information but don't find a reliable source. Is one necessary if there is a link to the album's article with her photo on the cover? Agadant (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the Independent a reliable source for these purposes? [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That should be a good source to include the information. I didn't read it far enough to see that it referred to the "No Prima Donna" album cover featuring Michelle Rocca. It should also be a good source for a good amount of the Michelle Rocca article. Agadant (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientology

As far as I know, one doesn't "study Scientology" as one does study medicine or ancient history. So Van Morrison was or is a member of the so called "Scientology Church" wich is not to compare with being a member of the local golf club. --141.15.33.1 (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source but in general, a person can study the precepts/teachings of any religion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Junior"?

According to the MoS, people should only have "Junior" included as part of their name in articles if that is how they are commonly known or used it themselves ~ not simply because a parent had the same name. Is there any reliable evidence that Morrison was ever commonly known with "Junior" as part of his name? If not then it should be removed. It is also an uncommon custom outside of the United States for people to include it in their name. If no one can provide any evidence in support of its inclusion then I will remove it as per the MoS guidelines. Afterwriting (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Van Morrison is not a junior because although he shared the same first name as his father, George, his middle name Ivan was unique to him. I don't know what his father's middle name was or if he had one. Agadant (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir Van Morrison KBE ?

He was already an OBE in 2015 when he became a Knight Commander, does this make him a KBE now? 101.98.248.252 (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't promoted to KBE from OBE. He was appointed a Knight Bachelor, which is the lowest rank of knight available in the British honours system and separate to the Order of the British Empire. A Knight Bachelor gets to use "Sir" but doesn't get any letters after his name. As Van Morrison already held an OBE, he keeps those letters after his name plus "Sir" before it. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

eh?? "... lowest rank of night available"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Behavior

Decades of reports of rude behavior towards persons with less power seem to have been altogether skipped here. Honestly, this article reads more like a piece written by his PR firm. 75.144.246.121 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That's because this article is written using information found in published, reliable sources (cited in the article), rather than being based on rumor and innuendo. If you have a published, reliable source to mention and cite that details bad behavior on the subject's part, by all means mention it here. If not, your claim on this Talk page violates our policy on the biography of living persons and your comment will be removed. General Ization ^Talk 18:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Janet Planet notable?

I found this article without trouble and it seems she's a vocalist herself. Any thoughts? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)